News
SpaceX advances reuse efforts as recovery of two boosters nearly complete
Three launches, two recoveries, two coasts
Just over two weeks ago, SpaceX accomplished its most impressive feat of cadence yet, both launching and recovering two separate Falcon 9s in approximately 49 hours.
Two weeks later and two days after conducting a third launch in 13 days, residents of Los Angeles, California and Cape Canaveral, Florida both coincidentally reported that the two recovered boosters from the previous two launches had both gone horizontal and appeared ready for transport. After docking in Port Canaveral for the second time, Core 1029 was seen entering SpaceX’s LC-39A integration facilities on Friday. The booster on the West coast, 1036, was loaded aboard one of the company’s converted Falcon 9-carrying semi-trucks, likely for transport to SpaceX’s Hawthorne manufacturing facilities, or possibly on a direct route to McGregor, Texas for refurbishment and testing.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWQSPOgF67i/
This is exciting for several reasons. Foremost, 1036 is a likely candidate for reuse, and SES-10 sets a firm precedent for this. The first commercial reuse of an orbital-class launch vehicle, Falcon 9’s second stage and SES-10 payload launched on a first stage that had flown five months before during the successful launch of Iridium’s first ten NEXT satellites.
Given the potential impact of failure on the adoption of reuse as a commercial standard, SpaceX likely approached the refurbishment of the vehicle with an end-goal balanced between perfection and realism. The orbit of Iridium’s NEXT constellation is the reason the booster was chosen for the first operational reuse: their low Earth polar orbits require Falcon 9’s first stage to undergo a smaller amount of heating and general hypersonic battering when compared with SpaceX’s more common commercial launches of geostationary satellites.
-->-
- The central aluminum grid fin of 1029 features a dramatic lack of several vanes, likely melted off during the intense heat of reentry. Expending older boosters is likely helping SpaceX learn how to preserve Block 5 rockets for multiple high-energy missions. (Reddit, u/thedubya22)
-
- SpaceX will move to titanium grid fins in the future, first trialed during 1036’s launch of Iridium-2. (SpaceX)
A sound example of the extremes of Falcon 9’s suborbital reentry heating can be found in the recovery of 1029, which launched BulgariaSat-1 to a supersynchronous transfer orbit. Noted before the launch by Musk over his favored medium, 1029’s recovery was expected to be the most energetic yet, and thus success was less than certain. The results of this additional heating were obvious, and keen observers rapidly noted that the most stressed of 1029’s aluminum grid fins appeared to be considerably deformed from the stage’s energetic return to OCISLY, completed melted through in places. Considering the debut of more robust titanium grid fins aboard the launch of Iridium-2 only two days later, the quasi-destruction of one of 1029’s grid fins was somewhat fitting. 1036’s titanium grid fins looked barely worse for wear after a landing that was also deemed aggressive due to Just Read The Instructions having to avoid bad weather just before the landing.
Two weeks: BulgariaSat-1, Iridium-2, Intelsat 35e. (SpaceX)
Stirring explorations of the limits of recovery aside, both boosters are now ready to be examined and refurbished ahead of one or even two additional launches. SpaceX’s willingness to use the booster recovered from the launch of Thaicom-8 has already established that the company has a certain level of confidence in the reuse of first stages that have suffered high-velocity recoveries. Thus, 1036 is nearly certain to be reused, and 1029 has a strong chance as well.
-
- Falcon 9 1029’s lean is decidedly more extreme than the stage that launched Thaicom-8. (SpaceX)
-
- The aggressive Atlantic Ocean landing of Thaicom-8’s Falcon 9 first stage. (SpaceX)
The hot recovery of 1029 further marked the first use of a remotely-operated recovery robot aboard OCISLY, and could be seen below the leaning first stage as it entered Port Canaveral. It appears that its first use was a success, and the robot will certainly have a busy future of remotely securing first stages after landing. Remote securing and safing will both improve safety for those directly involved in on-ocean recovery, but it is also intended to expedite the process in order to ensure that OCISLY is prepared to recover Falcon 9 as often as possible. SpaceX’s recent cadence accomplishment of three launches in 13 days drives home the reality that weekly launches are readily achievable for the company, so long as there are pads available and payloads to be launched.
Weekly recoveries for an ASDS like OCISLY would be extremely time-sensitive, given the need for at least several days to simply reach the point of landing in the Pacific, and the addition of rapid robotic alternatives for operations aboard the drone ships could make such a goal more achievable. With SpaceX’s land-based landing facilities in perspective, it is easier to imagine a close future with weekly launches and landings of both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and possibly the propulsive-landing Dragon 2 spacecraft further down the road.
1036 horizontal and ready for transport. (Instagram/Luka Hargett)
A symbiosis of SpaceX fans and those familiar with the metal and chemistry have also led to fans speculating that the now-standard titanium grid fins may develop a subtle, golden patina of oxygenation after many reuses. Nothing could be more picturesquely symbolic of the successes SpaceX has had in their pursuit of reusable rocketry.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
-->It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
-->The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
-->News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
